Message-Id:	<m0xTnnz-000S26C@inti.gov.ar>
Comments:	Authenticated sender is <salvador AT natacha DOT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
From:	"Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT inti DOT edu DOT ar>
Organization:	INTI
To:	"Tom Demmer" <DEMMER AT brain1 DOT lstm DOT ruhr-uni-bochum DOT de>,
	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Fri, 7 Nov 1997 15:58:24 +0000
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: usleep bug?

"Tom Demmer" <DEMMER AT brain1 DOT lstm DOT ruhr-uni-bochum DOT de> wrote:

> Digging through the bug tracking system I found a bug complaining
> that usleep() doesn't work for small values. In the source I found 
> that it is based upon clock(), with a resolution of 50 ms. 
That's very bad.

> Is there 
> any deeper reason why not using uclock() for usleep()? The only one 
> coming to my mind is a wrap around at midnight or something like that.
> Any comments?

uclock fails on Loose95 because it reprograms the timer all the time and uclock 
need to reprogram the timer too.

SET 
------------------------------------ 0 --------------------------------
Visit my home page: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552/
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET). (Electronics Engineer)
Alternative e-mail: set-sot AT usa DOT net - ICQ: 2951574
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA
TE: +(541) 759 0013

- Raw text -